Talk:Attack on HMS Invincible

Attribution

Text and references and pictures copied from HMS Invincible to Attack on HMS Invincible, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Text and references copied from Exocet and Attack on HMS Invincible, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Text and references copied from Exocet Talk to Attack on HMS Invincible, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Text and references copied from Cross to the Heroic Valour in Combat and Attack on HMS Invincible, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Text and references and picture copied from Douglas A-4 Skyhawk to Attack on HMS Invincible, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Attack on HMS Invincible

User: Wee Curry Monster That you think the claims of damage or of the attack are "stupid" is WP:OR. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. And removing the Spanish language sources was because ...? WP:I don't like it? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed an untrue statement, no one claims the attack is fictional - are you suggesting we put something that fails WP:Verifiability back? I also removed the YouTube video as I took the time to watch it and it had nothing to do with the Invincible attack. I haven't put my personal opinion into the article, so it's not WP:OR and your lecture is not only inappropriate but rude, unhelpful and downright counter productive. I will now stop my effort in helping you to rescue this pile of crap. I will end this interaction by pointing out that WP:Verifiability does not mean we include WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories as having equal weight to reality. Goodbye. WCM_email 13:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I appreciate your help, but I do not appreciate removal of sources. They at least say there was damage. You chose to not address that. Goodbye. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Reworked the statement to say: "Although there are many who consider the results of the attack or the claimed damage to the carrier to be fictional, the Argentine sources are replete with the claims." Hope that satisfies you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't, your edit is not neutral. Argentine sources make claims of extensive damage but the ship was undamaged when it returned. Verifiability isn't a suicide pact where we have to treat verifiably untrue claims with equal weight. If you think that WP:Verifiability requires us to do so, I question you have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit. WCM_email 14:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

W I understand your concerns. In fact, the origin of this misinformation ought to be exposed and spiked. It stems directly from the attack. The latest book on the subject that I put in (paralle contents are on line, but I could not put in the URL — blacklisted WordPress. But you can find it. Ignoring the lies doesn't make them go away. Their existence is a fact, and not fringe theory at all. It is part of the story of this attack. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No you still don't get it, if you write in an impartial manner you put the claims in context. And I see you're further driving down article quality by edit warring back in unreliable sources. I will tag that too. Those lies as you put it are a WP:FRINGE theory but you're treating them with WP:UNDUE prominence. WCM_email 15:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

W I would also add that you are up against WP:3RR, and your questioning my competence went well beyond the line of WP:Civil. It is a personal attack. I won't respond in kind. Couth up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I won't go to ANI, but you do what you have to do. I have put his in context and sourced it. We disagree. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No I am not, I have refused to edit war with you. However, if you continue to edit war with others my warning is on your talk page and you take the consequences. It is not uncivil to question the competence of editor who is edit warring non-neutral material into the article and has edit warred to restore cites that have been blacklisted. If you want to take this to WP:ANI feel free to do so, I am a whisker away from doing that myself. If you do so beware the WP:BOOMERANG that is likely to result. WCM_email 15:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No threats were intended. You attack. Let's just work this out. I tried to get to yes on the AFD discussion. I thought your observations were quite good there.
I specifically said that I wasn't going to ANI, and I meant it. So throw your boomerang away, and don't forget to duck. I regret that cold type is such a poor way to communicate. We can work this through. WP:AGF 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Following WP:BRD would be a good start, it simply not acceptable to add back challenged material without discussion.

I'm just running through the references, many are poor quality, there is more that a handful of WP:SPS and some are blacklisted. I removed one but you've just put it back again. The sources need to be a lot better.

And like I've tried to explain, it needs to be written in an impartial tone. I gave you a good example in the deletion discussion.

Unfortunately I've now run out of editing time. WCM_email 15:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I added the language you wanted. However, I thought it was redundant given the preceding paragraph.

Obviously, we want the best sources available. But the Malvinas War was far away, a long time ago, and much ignored. So finding them ain't easy. The Phillips analysis was quite thorough and well documented. As I said, you can find it on line, but because its WordPress I can't put in the link. He did self publish it in a book too. I know about Wikipedia policy and discussions, but I tend to evaluate sources based upon their inherent plausability as they appear. A priori rules don't do that.

A lot of the material is in Spanish language, too. We suffer from a systemic bias that affects outcomes and what is included.

I am not trying to be negative here. Take a break, and we'll figure it out. Please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

W I used your language, and bolstered it (IMO) to ensure that section was neutrally written. Please take a look, and fix it if you feel the need. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

An editor seems to believe that WP:VERIFIABILITY requires we treat WP:FRINGE and conspiracy claims in sources that are verifiably untrue with equal weight to what is the overwhelming view in the literature. The ship sailed home completely unharmed, so treating claims it was damaged as having equal weight in wikipedia is simply ludicrous. Instead of discussing that, he's edit warring it back into the article totally ignoring WP:BRD. If we mention it all, we should first of all state that the ship sailed home undamaged but then comment that these sources still claim to this day it was damaged. And it's trivial to find sources that say Invincible was undamaged but the Argentines still claim it was despite all the evidence to the contrary.

As such, I'm not going to indulge in an edit war but I've tagged the offending section and bringing it here for more discussion. WCM_email 14:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)